HKSAR v. IP MING

HCMA 835/2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 835 OF 2005

(ON APPEAL FROM KCCC 4342/2005)

____________

______________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1.  The Appellant was charged with managing a divan and he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment.  He now appeals against that sentence.

2.  The agreed facts show that the Appellant had admitted two undercover officers to the divan and 15 people were found in the premises and subsequently a large quantity of heroin and related paraphernalia were found.

3.  The quantity of heroin was large in that it was 20.81 grammes of mixture containing 14.06 grammes of heroin.

4.  The Appellant, though only aged 41 already has 13 previous convictions of which three were drug related. 

5.  The divan that the Appellant was managing cannot be considered a small one.

6.  The learned Magistrate very correctly determined that a deterrent sentence was necessary.

7.  The Appellant had left Hong Kong when he was granted bail for this offence and he had been put on the wanted list and he was arrested when he returned to Hong Kong at Lo Wu.

8.  The Appellant on appeal had submitted that he left Hong Kong in 2002 when he was granted bail and went to China where he was subsequently detained and jailed in China.  He shouldn’t have left Hong Kong in any event.

9.  The Appellant appealed on the basis that he would like to look after his son and he therefore asked for a lighter sentence.  Looking at the sentence and the facts in this case, the sentence cannot, by any measure, be considered to be manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

10.  If he had not left Hong Kong and had served his sentence in 2002, he would have been out of jail by now.

11.  I see no merit in this appeal and I have considered whether to increase the sentence but I would not do so this time.